Ha ha, another argument borderline straw man/false dichotomy limiting one's options for creative thinking like using metaphor.
Or even hasty generalization - if one keeps repeating someone is controversial it must be true!.
Nothing wrong with the author expressing his expertise and enjoyably informative but JP makes no claim on expertise on everything.
Author did say for JP "It’s not that he gets the science wrong, ..
And, here I will contradict myself sorta and say why not?. If the author wants to talk and impose "slugs" on us - have at it. We all do it all the time, taking something to illustrate something else.
It's like thinking of a virtual investment/politics community message board as an ipub - we are always imposing personal perspective and experience on things .. burp ;).
Yes, there are many hit pieces coming from insecure locales like the NY Times and Wapo.. read them; always hinting at right wing parallels without the knock out punch - sad/poor journalism.
Until there is a smoking gun I'll stay with the substance behind, the motivation behind ideas put forward.
To be fair to this Wapo girl, her insinuations didn't affect her conclusion though terribly expressed to get one more shot in:
What is most striking to me, though, is the simplicity of the message. Peterson’s teachings are the sort of thing you would expect to learn from a parent, mentor or religious tradition while growing up. Peterson’s role is like that of a clear-eyed friend: someone to whom you can ask questions, with whom you can reflect upon the difficulties of your life. Someone who will give you bracing feedback when needed.
“Who the hell are you, really?”
Do we not have parents anymore? Do we no longer have friends? Peterson’s pronouncements all used to be common wisdom — how did it disappear?
The Jordan Peterson phenomenon calls to mind recent research, from scholars such as Richard Reeves and Robert Putnam, about an America dividing into social haves and have-nots. There are those lucky few for whom these rules to an orderly, productive life are inculcated from youth. And there are the rest, left to scavenge meaning for themselves, who will have to rely on Jordan Peterson.
ie the root of prejudice is to judge by one's (dandy boy) cover and not the essence.
And, back to our biologist friend's concluding remarks - also, not really going after the substance of JP's use of the lobster as metaphor for embracing one's way in this world standing on our own two pincher and crusher claws, lol.. but to take a conspiratorial theory, personal shot and imposing fallacious argument - do it this/my way:
Our animal relatives have evolved specifically to survive in their unique environments, just as much as we have evolved to fit ours.No biologist would argue with Peterson that dominance hierarchies have probably existed for a long time, but it’s also true that plenty of animals live together without the need to assert dominance over one another.It seems as if his discussion of lobsters illustrates far more about his own worldview than it does about human behavior, but he’s the psychologist, not me. Peterson tells his readers to draw inspiration from an animal that can’t stand interacting with its own species outside of sex. I say life is so bizarre and beautiful that there’s inspiration to be found everywhere.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
